13 views

Uploaded by Fernanda Clain

Thermophysical Properties of Carbon and Low Alloyed Steels

Thermophysical Properties of Carbon and Low Alloyed Steels

© All Rights Reserved

- hitch fracture
- Bainite in Steels
- WRC 1992
- Welding Procedure Specification
- Practical Guidelines for the Fabrication of High Performance Austenitic SS
- Classification of Stainless Steels
- Normalizing heat treatment.pdf
- ASME II Part A
- STUDIES ON EFFECT OF PERCENTAGE OF CARBON ON THE TENSILE & COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF STRUCTURAL STEEL
- 19. VV SATYANARAYANA 2005 Dissimilar metal friction welding of austenitic–ferritic stainless steels
- Basic Metallurgy
- A255
- WJ_1992_05_s171.pdf
- 347623-PO 4503181944-LI 1
- A493 00.pdf
- Stainless Steel
- JWM 2017 Question Paper
- Heat Treatment
- AskelandPhuleNotes-CH12Printable
- IPC2012-90327

You are on page 1of 8

for Modeling of Solidification Processes

JYRKI MIETI'INEN and SEPPO LOUHENKILPI

Algorithms and a computer software package for calculating thermophysical material properties

of carbon and low-alloyed steels, associated with the simulation of solidification processes, have

been developed. The earlier studies on kinetic phase transformation modeling are applied and

are the base of the present work. The calculation algorithms are based on thermodynamic theory

connected to thermodynamic assessment data, as well as on regression formulas of experimental

data, and they take into account the temperature, the cooling rate, and the steel composition.

The calculation algorithms and some results of calculations are presented in this article.

function of temperature and composition only, i.e., the

THE modeling of solidification systems is a problem cooling rate is not taken into account. So, it is seldom

of a great mathematical and industrial significance. In

possible to find all the data needed. This is especially

recent years, computer simulation models have been de-

the case for carbon and low-alloyed steel grades, be-

veloped to simulate heat transfer in solidification pro-

cause in these steels, even small variations in the com-

cesses. Numerical methods, mostly finite difference or

position may have a significant effect on the

finite element methods, are effectively used. However,

thermophysical material properties. A model that could

to obtain reliable results, accurate data on the thermo-

simulate the thermophysical material properties of steels,

physical material properties are also needed. Typical

taking into account the cooling and the composition,

data needed are the density, the thermal conductivity,

seems not to be available.

and the specific heat. Other important data are the phase

Therefore, algorithms and a computer software pack-

transformation temperatures and the corresponding latent

age for calculating thermophysical material properties of

heats, and also the way in which the latent heats are

steels, taking into account the temperature, the cooling

released during the phase transformations. If so-called

rate, and the composition, have been developed. The

enthalpy formulation is used, the enthalpy values can di-

earlier studies on kinetic phase transformation modeling

rectly be used if they are known. The enthalpy then in-

are applied, and they are the base of the present

cludes all the other data except the thermal conductivity

work. fLz,3] The calculation algorithms are based on

and the density.

thermodynamic theory connected to thermodynamic

The material data are not only functions of the tem-

assessment data and on regression formulas of experi-

perature and the composition but also of the cooling rate.

mental data. The package is now valid for carbon and

This is because the kinetics of phase transformations

low-alloyed steel grades and is under progress for stain-

depend on the cooling rate and the thermophysical prop-

less and alloyed steels. The calculation algorithms and

erties are related to the phases formed. At high temper-

some obtained results are presented in this article.

atures, a high cooling rate typically lowers the phase

transformation temperatures, especially the solidus tem-

perature, but not drastically, due to the compensating II. THERMAL MODELING

effect of a finer dendritic microstructure. At low tem- OF SOLIDIFICATION

peratures, however, the effect of the cooling rate upon

the phase transformation temperatures is much clearer. A general solidification phase change system without

Thus, for accurate simulation of solidification and cool- convection can be described by the following equation:

ing processes, one should be able to know the material

data as a function of temperature, composition, and pc-- =- k + Q [1]

cooling rate. ot Ox

Normally, the material data are taken from the liter-

ature. It is seldom possible, however, to find all the data Here, p is the density, c is the specific heat, k is the

needed. Although material data have been measured for thermal conductivity, and Q is a term describing the rate

a great number of steel grades, most of these data are of energy released by the phase transformations. For so-

valid for the low-temperature region only, and there are lidification phase change, it can be defined as

only few data for higher temperatures up to the liquid

Q = oL o(f~) [2]

JYRKI MIETrlNEN, Research Engineer, and SEPPO Ot

LOUHENK1LPI, Senior Teaching Assistant, are with the Laboratory

of Metallurgy, Helsinki, University of Technology, 02150 Espoo, Here, L is the latent heat of the solidification, and f~ =

Finland. f~(T) is called the solidified fraction in the mushy zone.

Manuscript submitted February 16, 1994. The later term describes the way in which the latent heat

is released during solidification. This way depends are made in one volume element placed on the side of

strongly on the chemical composition of the material to a dendrite arm (Figure 1), assuming a complete mixing

be cast. The solid-state phase transformations can be in the liquid phase. As a result, one obtains the phase

treated in a similar way. Therefore, the material data fractions f*(~b = L, 8, 31) and the phase compositions

needed are the density, the specific heat, the thermal X~ (i = 1 . . . . . n; ~b - L, 3, 3,) as a function of tem-

conductivity, the latent heats, and the phase fractions perature within the range 1000 ~ to 1600 ~ (here, n

during the phase transformations. is the number of components in the alloy). These results,

Equation [ 1] also can be expressed in another form by of course, depend on the cooling rate of the process and

using so-called enthalpy formulation. The enthalpy, H, the chemical analysis of the alloy. Note that the cooling

is defined as the sum of the sensible (fCp. dT) and the rate, given as input data, does not need to be constant.

latent heats. Equation [1] now becomes Normally, the cooling rate varies at different distances

from the casting surfaces and also in time. This can now

p--=-- k [31 be taken into account. Note also that as the model deals

Ot Ox with nonequilibrium solidification, X~ will vary in ferrite

and austenite. Consequently, inside these phases, special

In this case, the necessary material data are the density, concentration profiles will be formed (in liquid, this will

the enthalpy, and the thermal conductivity. The enthalpy not happen due to the complete mixing).

now includes all the other material data, except the den- At lower temperatures (T < 1000 ~ austenite can

sity and the thermal conductivity. Hence, the enthalpy decompose via the following phase transformations: y

values can directly be used if they are known. p s , y --* pc, and y ---->e s + ec, where po~ denotes pro-

In the heat-transfer models, it is usually assumed that eutectoid ferrite, pc denotes proeutectoid cementite, and

the material data are functions of the temperature and e s + ec denotes a mixture of eutectoid ferrite and ce-

the composition only. The cooling rate, however, is also mentite, called pearlite or bainite. In addition, during

an important parameter, because it affects phase trans- rapid cooling, austenite may transform at low tempera-

formations and therefore the thermophysical material tures to carbon-saturated ferrite (martensite) as y ~ m s .

properties. Normally, the cooling rate varies at different In order to simulate these transformations in carbon and

distances from the casting surfaces and also in time. To low-alloyed steels, a semiempirical austenite de-

be precise, this should be taken into account when solv- composition model (ADC) TM was developed. Here, em-

ing the heat-transfer equations. So, for accurate simu- pirical formulas based on continuous cooling

lation of solidification processes, one should be able to

transformation (CCT) experiments were evaluated to

know or model the material data as a function of tem-

predict the temperature ranges of different structures

perature, composition, and cooling rate, and this model (% p s , p c , e s + ec, m s ) as a function of alloy com-

or knowledge should then be coupled in a proper way to

position, cooling rate, and austenite grain size. These

the heat-transfer calculations.

formulas were then coupled to a thermodynamic model,

Equation [1] or [3] is normally solved using fixed

assuming a paraequilibrium condition during the phase

grids. This means that the contraction of the steel is not

transformations. This means that only carbon distributes

calculated and taken into account, i.e., the density

between different phases, whereas the other components

cannot be varied either. In such cases, the density should

be that of the initial liquid and constant. However, tend to inherit the composition of austenite in all phases.

during solidification, the fluid in interdendritic space is As a result of the calculations, one obtains the fractions

free to move, and it more or less compensates the so- of the structures, f ~ (~ = Y, p s , pc, e s + ec, m s ) , and

lidification contractions. To take this feeding into ac- the phase compositions, X~ (i = 1 . . . . . n), as functions

count, the density for the solid phase should be the of temperature within the range T = 25 ~ to 1000 ~

density at the solidus temperature, while above the sol- Note that the cooling rate must be constant in the ADC

idus, the density should vary as a function of model. The reheating or varying cooling rate cannot be

temperature. taken into account. Another problem is the determina-

tion of the original austenite grain size after solidifica-

tion. Accurate data seem not to be available. This item

will be studied more precisely in the future. The IDS

lII. C A L C U L A T I O N O F

THERMOPHYSICAL PROPERTIES

Depending on composition, the solidifying steel goes

through some of the following phase transformations:

L --> 8, L --> y, L + 8 --> y, and 8 --> y, where L denotes

liquid, 8 denotes delta ferrite, and y denotes austenite.

In order to simulate these transformations in carbon and

low-alloyed steels, an interdendritic solidification model

(IDS), was developed, ll,21 In this model, the main in-

struments of conventional solute redistribution models

(i.e., material balance equations and Fick's diffusion

laws) are coupled to a thermodynamic solution model,

which relates the compositions of the phase interfaces to Fig, 1 - Longitudinal and transverse cross section of dendrites with

temperature and the phase stabilities. The calculations a volume element on the side of a dendrite arm.

and ADC models are now valid for carbon and low al- In Eq. [11], term G * for liquid, ferrite, and austenite can

loyed steels. be expressed as

When evaluating thermophysical properties for an

n

alloy, one has to know the properties of the individual

phases and the fractions of these phases. In the case of a : [12]

steels, the phase fractions can be calculated with the IDS

and the ADC models as shown previously. Assuming cb

now that the thermophysical properties are the same for Here, n is the number of components in the alloy, Xi is

all ferritic phases (8, pa, ea, ma) and for both cementite the mole fraction of component i in phase ~b, and/z~ is

phases (pc, ec), the evaluation procedure can be sim- the chemical potential of the component i in that phase.

plified considerably. This implies, however, that the A precise description of the chemical potential depends

total fractions of ferrite and cementite expressed as on the solution model to be used. In this study, the

Wagner-Lupis-Elliott model (WLE) ~4,5"6~ was chosen

f ~ = f a + fpa + f ~ + f,,~ [4] because it can be well applied to the dilute solution

phases of carbon and low-alloyed steels.I2J In addition,

f~ =fPc + f ~ [5] the model is simple and its database can be easily ex-

are known. Here, terms f~, fP'~, f"'~, and fP~ can be cal- tended with special data-conversion formulas, m When

culated directly with the IDS and the ADC models, and applying the WLE model to the phases of iron-base

terms fe,, and f ~ can be approximated from the binary alloys (~b = L, a, y), the chemical potentials of iron and

Fe-C phase diagram as solute elements can be expressed as

(6.69 - pet C)

fea ~ .f~,~+~c [6]

6.69 + RTln X~F~+ GFE~ [13]

pct C

fec .~. .fea+~c [7]

6.69

+ (67 '~ - G~) + RT In X~ + Of 6 [14]

where pct C is the carbon content in weight percent and

f~,+e~ is the fraction of pearlite or bainite (or their mix- By means of the terms G~176 - _it-/sERand G~162- G~176

(here,

ture) calculated with the ADC model. Therefore, know- i also stands for iron), the Gibbs energy of phase 4, is

ing the fractions and the thermophysical properties of expressed relative to a special reference state (SER), 171

liquid, ferrite, austenite, and cementite, one is able to i.e., the enthalpies of pure elements in their defined ref-

evaluate the properties for the whole steel from room erence phase at 298.15 K and 105 Pa. For iron, the ref-

temperature up to liquid phase. In Sections III-A erence phase is a and for solute elements, it is described

through C, special formulas are given to calculate molar by 0 in Eq. [14]. The third term in Eq. [14], G ~ -

enthalpy, molar specific heat, thermal conductivity, and G ~ , changes the reference state of solute elements in

density for carbon and low-alloyed steels. phase ~b from that of pure elements (Raoultian standard

state) to the state of infinite dilution (Henrian standard

state), in regard to which the effect rising from randomly

A. Calculation of Enthalpy and Enthalpy-Related mixed atoms (term RT In X~) and solutal interactions

Data as Specific and Latent Heats (term G~*) will be expressed. The last term, the partial

According to classical thermodynamics, the molar en- excess Gibbs energy G,-~, is given for iron and the solute

thalpy H and the molar specific heat Cp of a system can elements (i = 2 . . . . . n) as follows: 12,7~

be expressed as n n

H = G - T (;) p

[8]

G~ = A" E E RTe.~XiXj + 2B

i=2 j=2

Cp = - T \ ~ - 5 ] p [9] i=2 j=2 k=2

k#i

n n

~,here G is the molar Gibbs energy of the system. For

heterogeneous phase mixture containing ~r phases, the Gel = E RT~Xj + E RTpJ,X~

nolar Gibbs energy can be given as y=2 y=2

n t/

7"r

k=l j=2 k>j

3ibbs energy of that phase. For carbon and low-alloyed

teels, Eq. [10] can be written as

A = In 1- X~ + [17]

G = f ' G ~+ f " G '~ +f~'G ~' +f~G r [11] i=2 / i=2

transformations can be calculated in a similar way. The

B = In 1- Xi + X~ specific heat and the latent heats are enthalpy-related

-~ --

2

i=2

X i

i=2

X i

)' [ 18]

data, and as mentioned previously, when using the so-

called enthalpy formulation (Eq. [3]), enthalpy values

can be used directly as input data in the heat-transfer

models. In this case, the specific heat and the latent

Here, parameters e~, p~, and p~k describe chemical inter- heats need not be calculated.

actions between different solutes (the phase symbol ~b

has been omitted for the sake of clarity). B. Calculation o f T h e r m a l Conductivity

By ignoring the interactions between the substitutional In carbon and low-alloyed steels, thermal conductivity

solutes in cementite, term G ~ for cementite in Eq. [11] is usually not known for each individual solid phase but

can be approximated as rather for the solid state only. In this case, it is reason-

able to treat the solid phases as a one phase and apply

G~ = -" F:M(G ~ c ~ " ~ "S E R

only two-phase fractions,f ~(liquid fraction) a n d f f (solid

4 M=I,Mr

fraction), in calculations. Knowing that the solid fraction

o ] can be expressed a s f s = 1 - f t , the thermal conductivity

+ 3RT ~ IrMln IFM + ~ I%r [191 of the alloy can be calculated with equation

M = I,M~'2 M=3

k = (1 - f t ) / d + (1 + Amix)ftk/ [21]

Here, Y;a is the site fraction of substitutional element M

occupying sublattice (Fe, M) in cementite (Fe, M)3C. Here,/d and k t are the thermal conductivities in solid and

The term GM~C is the Gibbs energy of pure compound liquid state and A~ix is a parameter describing the effect

M3C, and L~r is a parameter describing the interaction of liquid convection upon the thermal conductivity. If

of Fe and M in sublattice (Fe, M). Note that carbon C the constant Amix is 0, there is no increased heat transfer

designated as 2 occupies another sublattice. By means in the mushy or liquid regions due to convection, i.e.,

0c SER SER 9

of the terms (GM~c -- 3HM -- Hc ), the Gibbs energies

9 the liquid phase is stagnant. This technique, called ef-

of pure compounds M3C are expressed relative to the fective thermal conductivity, is most often used to ac-

reference state SER. count for the convective heat transfer in the liquid during

Values for terms G ~ 1 7 6HSi ER and G ~ - G ~176in solidification, u~ The value of Amix depends on the

Eqs. [13] and [14] have been given by Dinsdale, tTl and mixing intensity, and it can be determined experimen-

values for terms GM~c- 3H sER- HscER and L~r have tally. For a continuous-steel-casting process, for in-

been given by Huang {81 and Qiu. t91 In addition, special stance, a value of Am~x = 4 to 6 may be applied, u~

data-conversion formulas have been derived 121 to evalu- Thermal conductivity has been measured in many

ate values for terms G~6 - G ~ and the interaction pa- carbon and low-alloyed steels at low temperatures, ua-~7j

rameters of Eqs. [ 13] and [ 14]. It should be remembered but at higher temperatures up to the liquidus tempera-

that the published or the evaluated values of all the ture, only a few measurements are available, u4,~6A71

thermodynamic parameters discussed previously are fi- In this work, the thermal conductivity in liquid is as-

sumed to have a constant value of

nally based on experimental measurements such as ac-

tivity measurements, such as activity measurements,

heat-capacity and mixing-enthalpy measurements, and /d = 35

(w) [221

gas equilibrium and solubility data.

When applying Eq. [ 11 ], the ferritic term f " G ~ should

be expressed as f ~ G ~ = fSG~ + fP~C,p~ + f f ~ G e~ + This value, representing the thermal conductivity of pure

f " ~ G "~ because the composition in the ferritic phases is iron at T~, was chosen because of the lack of data for

not the same. The thermodynamic data of ferrite, how- liquid steels. In addition, above the A3 temperature, the

ever, are the same for all the terms G ~, GP~, G ~, and influence of alloying upon the thermal conductivity is

G'% In the case o f cementite, one may apply G ~ = known to be small, f17~

G p~ -- G ~ due to the paraequilibrium condition assumed. In the solid, the thermal conductivity is evaluated by

Finally, it should be remembered that when applying the applying a linear regression analysis to the experimental

equations of this section to calculate the molar enthalpy measurements. ~4"~5"16~ As a result of the analysis, four

or the molar specific heat of the alloy, the mole fraction formulas of the type

X~ in the equations refers to the average composition in

the phase. This can be estimated from the concentration ld = ko + "~a,Ci [23]

profiles obtained with the IDS or the ADC model.

Now, knowing H and Cp by means of Eqs. [8] and

[9], one can then approximate the latent heat of solidi- were obtained corresponding to temperatures 1000 ~

fication (L) from Eq. [20] as 400 ~ 200 ~ and 25 ~ as shown in Table I. In these

L = AHr__,r, - f/ s

Cp. d T [20]

formulas, ai represents the effect of solute i upon/d, and

C, is the composition of solute i. As can be seen, the

correlation coefficients are quite high.

Assuming that kS -= k~ at the liquidus temperature,

where Tz and T~ are the liquidus and the solidus temper- Eq. [22] and the formulas of Table I can be used to inter-

atures of the alloy. The latent heats of solid state phase polate a value for/d at any temperature. At temperatures

Table 1. Thermal Conductivity k ~ ko + Ea,C~ in Low-Alloyed Steels at Different Temperatures*

1000 28.12 -1.60 -0.18 -0.55 . . . . 9 0.93

400 47.70 -7.70 -5.12 -3.37 -3.10 0.59 - 1.68 -6.07 71 0.93

200 57.56 -9.98 -8.85 -6.65 -5.00 -0.48 -3.12 -8.84 73 0.94

25 68.15 -15.9 -12.4 -12.5 -7.87 -1.71 -4.61 -9.99 66 0.95

*The. value of k is given in W/Km and C is given in Weight Percent, N = number of alloys, and r = correlation coefficient.

T < 1000 ~ however, the interpolation should be made In Eq9 [25], the density of liquid, ferrite, austenite,

with the I d / T slope of the previous temperature range and cementite can be calculated from the equations

until proeutectoid ferrite, proeutectoid cementite, or

pearlite begins to form at T = T' (Figure 2). After this, p t = (8319.49 - 0 . 8 3 5 . T )

the interpolation should be made between T --- T' and 9(1 - 0.01 -pct C) + AL [26]

T = 400 ~ by applying the proper/,g values of these

temperatures. p~ = (7875.96 - 0.297 9T - 5.62" 10 -5. T 2)

9(1 - 0 9 pet C) + A s [27]

C. Calculation o f Density p~ = (8099.79 - 0.506. T)

In general, the density of a heterogeneous phase mix- 9(1 - 0.0146- pet C) + A s [28]

ture containing 7r phases can be defined as [~81

pC = 7686 9 - 0.0663.T- 3.12- 10 - 4 - T 2 [29]

where

p = 1/~f 4,k/ P ~k [24]

A L = - 6 7 . 5 pct Si - 3.9 pct Mn - 8.6 pct Cr

+ 24 pct Mo + 3.3 pct Ni [30]

where f+K is the fraction of phase d~k and p~" is the den-

sity of that phase. In the case of carbon and low-alloyed A s = - 6 3 . 1 pct Si - 6.1 pct Mn - 9.3 pct Cr

steels, Eq. [24] can be expressed as + 2.6 pct Mo - 09 pct Ni [31]

Here, density p is given in k g / m 3, temperature T is

p= 1

/f j +~--~+p +

,= ,j] [251 given in ~ and solute contents are given in weight per-

cent. These sentences, excluding terms A L and A s, are

based on the analysis of Jablonka et al. tZsj for pure iron

where f o and f c are given by Eqs. [4] and [5]. At high and iron-carbon alloys9 The term AL was evaluated from

temperatures (T > 1000 ~ terms f t , f~, and f r , are the density measurements for liquid binary iron

calculated with the IDS model and the o t h e r f '~ terms are alloys, I~9,2~ and the term A s was calculated by applying

set to zero, whereas at low temperatures, terms f / and a linear regression analysis to the density measurements

f~ are set to zero and the other f '~ terms are calculated given for multicomponent steels at the room tempera-

with the ADC model, applying Eqs. [6] and [7]. ture. I~6~ The regression analysis included 30 alloys and

yielded the value 0.987 for the correlation coefficient 9

In the analysis, carbon was not included as a regression

variable, but its effect was taken into account by apply-

ing the following formulation:

pmeasurea= 6 . 6 9 / [ 6 . 6 9 _.C~_dpct

p + pctC]pc

-_1

O + Ea,Ci [32]

where the term Y.a,Ci equals the term A s to be solved,

o and p" and pC were calculated from Eqs. [27] and [29]

t- by setting T = 25 ~ and A s = 0. Hence, the A s term

I---

i i

the density of ferrite at the room temperature. This term

25 200 400 T' 1000 TL

also is applied to austenite because of the lack of the

Temperature (~ density measurements for that phase.

Fig. 2 - - S c h e m a t i c view on interpolation o f thermal conductivity/(

below the liquidus temperature (T~) by applying known k~ values of IV. EXAMPLES AND DISCUSSION

certain temperatures (black spots). The white spot refers to the for-

mation o f proeutectoid ferrite, proeutectoid cementite, or pearlite at The IDS and A D C models calculate the temperature

temperature T'. ranges of phase transformations, as well as the phase

fractions during the transformations. These models were 1400

1301]

ous experimental values, and a reasonable correlation

was found between the results. ~1,2,3~ The calculation of

121)0

thermal conductivity is based on regression formulas of 13J

experimental data and, due to the high values of the cor- ,.,~ 1100

relation coefficients (Table I), the results should be quite

Z

reliable. At high temperatures, however, the data avail- 1000

able are meager and their validity is difficult to estimate.

The calculation of density is based on the results of

the IDS and ADC models and on experimental data. For

9OO \s.~{

pure iron and iron-carbon alloys, the experimental data 800 I t I I I

were taken from the analysis of Jablonka et al. t~81 They 1300 1351] 1400 1450 1501] 1550 1600

calculated the effect of carbon on the density in iron- T (*C)

carbon alloys as a function of temperature and found a

70(1

good agreement between the calculated and measured re-

suits. In order to take other solute elements into account,

601] pa ,

regression formulas were evaluated. Enough data to

make an acceptable regression were found, however,

only at 25 "C and in the liquid range. Thus, one equation a~500

was evaluated for the liquid phase and one for 25 ~

The latter also is used over the range between 25 ~ and -r. 400

the solidus temperature. The error is not necessarily sig-

nificant, but one aim for the future work is to find more 300

data for the density. On the other hand, when using fixed

grids in the heat-transfer calculations, the contraction of 200 I I .... t J

the steel is not calculated and taken into account and so 500 600 700 800 900 I000

the density cannot be varied either (Section II).

The calculation of enthalpy and enthalpy-related data T (*C)

as specific and latent heats is based on the results of the Fig. 3 - - E n t h a l p y of pure iron and steel, 1 pct Mn, 0.02 pct P,

IDS and ADC models, thermodynamic theory, and 0.3 pct Si containing 9.1 pct C (steel 1) or 0.6 pet C (steel 2) and

thermodynamic assessment data. The thermodynamic cooled at a rate of T = 1 ~ Symbols are L = liquid, 6 =

delta ferrite, 7 = austenite, S = solidus temperature, p a = proeutec-

data bank of the models contains data for the following toid ferrite, P = pearlite, and P' = end of pearlite reaction_

elements: Fe, A1, B, C, Ca, Cr, Cu, Mn, Mo, N, Nb,

Ni, O, P, S, Si, Ti, and V. Because of the numerous

thermodynamic assessments available today, especially

for iron-base alloys, the thermodynamic calculations can In the case of the 0.6 pct C (steel 2), the solidification

from this point of view be considered quite reliable. An is totally austenitic. At lower temperatures, austenite de-

accurate comparison between calculated and measured composes in both steels to proeutectoid ferrite ( p a l and,

results has been made for pure iron and the Fe-C system later, also to pearlite (P).

only. In both cases, an excellent agreement comparable Figure 3 shows that in steel 1, not only the formation

to those in References 21 and 22 was obtained. For al- of delta ferrite but also the formation of austenite (3,),

loyed steel, only a few experimental data are available, proeutectoid ferrite ( p a l , and pearlite (P) accelerates the

and we are now searching for more data to do accurate heat release. In steel 2, the heat release during the pearl-

comparisons. ite reaction is quite effective due to the quite narrow

Figures 3 through 6 show calculated results for pure temperature range T e to T P" of the austenite de-

iron and for two steel grades, which differ only in carbon composition. Note that in the case of steel 1, this range

content. The effect of the composition on the results is much wider, from T p" to T e'.

clearly can be seen. For instance, in pure iron, the phase Figure 4 shows that proeutectoid ferrite ( p a l increases

transformations take place at constant temperatures, the specific heat of pure iron. At the Curie point of pure

whereas in steels within a certain temperature range. The iron (770 ~ the specific heat increases sharply and

phase transformations taking place are as follows: then decreases smoothly as the temperature decreases.

In steel 1, specific heat increases due to the formation

for pure iron, L ---> 8 ---> 3/--> p a

of proeutetoid ferrite and pearlite. The increase is

for the 0.1 pct Csteel, L ---> ~, L + ~ ----> % ~ ~ 3,,

weaker than in pure iron because of the gradually in-

31 --> pa, 3/----> P (ea + ec) creasing ferrite fraction during the y --> p a trans-

for the 0.6 pct Csteel, L ~ % 3' --> pa, formation. In the case of steel 2, the strong increase of

3, ~ P (ea + ec) the specific heat due to the pearlite formation can be

In the case of iron and O. 1 pct C steel (steel 1), the explained by the narrow temperature range of austenite

first phase to be formed is delta ferrite (~). Some degrees decomposition.

above the solidus (S), steel goes through the peritectic The cooling rate is also an important parameter. While

transformation (L + t$ ---> 3,), which then, below the sol- affecting the kinetics of phase transformations, it also

idus, changes to the solid-state transformation (~ ---> 3,). affects the thermophysical properties of the alloy. As an

0.9 9 -'---7 7500

S Y

7400

A

v 0.8 7mo

6iL

v

"" 7200

o. _e.

0 0.7

71oo

o

y:~5 s

7OOO

0.6 : i + + i

Y

69OO t t 9 I I

1301) 1351) 1400 1450 IS(X) 1550 1600 1300 1~ 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600

t (*C) T (~

i.1 7800

i

p,

.~ p. r

v-'- 0.9 E 7700

0.8

o. Z-

0 0.7 76oo

o

a

0.6

0.5 : ~ ~ - 7500 + - I I I

5OO 60O 7OO 800 900 !000 500 600 700 800 900 I000

T (~ T (*(2:)

Fig. 4 - - S p e c i l i c heat of pure iron and steel, 1 pct Mn, 0.02 pet P, Fig. 6 - - D e n s i t y of pure iron and steel, 1 pet Mn, 0.02 pct P,

0.3 pct Si containing 9-1 pet C (steel 1) or 0.6 pct C (steel 2) and 0.3 pct Si containing 0..1 pct C (steel 1) or 0.6 pct C (steel 2)

cooled at a rate of T = 1 ~ Symbols are L = liquid, (5 = and cooled at a rate o f t = 1 ~ Symbols are L = liquid, 6 =

delta ferrite, y = austenite, S = solidus temperature, pc~ = pro- delta ferrite, y = austenite, S = solidus temperature, pot = proeutec-

eutectoid ferrite, P ~ pearlite, and P ' = end of pearlite reaction. told ferrite, P = pearlite, and P' = end of pearlite reaction.

0.9

p'

6

0.7

35

D.

o

30 0.6

2S P

0.5 ~ ~ i i I

500 550 600 650 700 7.50 800

0 200 400 600 800 ! 000 ! 200 1400 1600

T (~

T (*C)

Fig. 7 - - S p e c i f i c heat of steel, 0.2 pet C., I pet Mn, 0.02 pc.t P,

Fig. 5 - - T h e r m a l conductivity of pure iron and steel 1 pet Mn, 0.3 pct Si cooled at a rates of (a) T = 10 ~ (b) T =

0.02 pct P, 0.3 pct Si containing 0.1 pct C (steel I) and 0.6 pct C 0.1 ~ and (c) T = i0 ~ at T > 1000 ~ and T = 0.1 ~ at

(steel 2) and cooled at a rate of T = 1 ~ Symbols are: pot = T < 1000 ~ Symbols are pot = proeutectoid fertile, P = pearlite,

proeutectoid ferrite and P = pearlite. and P' = end of pearlite reaction,

example, Figure 7 shows the effect of cooling rate upon also that a high cooling rate during solidification refines

the specific heat at lower temperatures. As can be seen, the grain size. This also affects the kinetics of the phase

a high cooling rate delays the formation of new phases transformations and the material properties (case c in

~cases a and b). The cooling rate also affects the frac- Figure 7).

:ions of phases to be formed during phase transforma- Figure 8 shows the calculated latent heat values of so-

;ions and, also in this way, the material properties. Note lidification for the iron-carbon system and for a steel

200

lation algorithms are based on thermodynamic theory

connected to thermodynamic assessment data, as well as

on regression formulas of experimental data. The pack-

0) 250 ----- - Pet~oeffe ": . . . . . . . . . . . .

age is now valid for carbon and low-alloyed steel grades

and is under progress for stainless and alloyed steels.

..a 245 Some comparisons between the calculated results and

measured values were done and a good agreement was

24O found, l~,z,31 but more comparisons are planned, espe-

L'->ferrite,~ Auslenite formafiQn starts cially on enthalpy and on enthalpy-related data, such as

235 ,

specific and latent heats. The development work of the

0 O. 1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 calculation algorithms will also be continued.

wt%C

Fig. 8--Calculated latent heat of solidification as a function of ACKNOWLEDGMENT

carbon content for Fe-C system and for steel A: X pct C, 1 pct Mn,

0.02 pct P, and 0.3 pct Si, cooled at a rate of ~" = 1 ~ The authors wish to thank Professor Lauri Holappa

with the Helsinki University of Technology and the

Technology Development Center for financial support.

grade A, 1 pct Mn, 0.02 pct P, 0.3 pct Si, as a function

of carbon content. Up to about 0.1 pet C, the liquid so-

lidifies fully to ~-ferrite and the latent heat decreases REFERENCES

with increasing carbon content (or with decreasing sol-

1. J. Miettinen: Metall. Trans. A, 1992, vol. 23A, pp. 1155-70.

idus temperature). Above about 0.1 pct C, the steels so- 2. J. Miettinen: Ph.D. Thesis, Helsinki University of Technology,

lidify partly to austenite through the peritectic reaction Espoo, Finland, 1992.

and, with increasing austenite fraction, the latent heat 3. J. Miettinen: 1-lelsinki University of Technology, Espoo, Finland,

increases. At the peritectic composition (for the Fe-C- unpublished research, 1994.

4. C. Wagner: Thermodynamics of Alloys, Addison-Wesley,

system 0.17 pet C), the steel already solidifies fully to Reading, MA, 1952.

austenite (through the peritectic reaction). The latent 5. C.H.P. Lupis and J.F. EllioU: Acta Metall., 1966, vol. 14,

heat is highest at the peritectic composition. Above the pp. 529-38.

peritectic composition, the latent heat again decreases 6. S. Srikanth and K.T. Jacob: Metall. Trans. B, 1988, vol. 19B,

with increasing carbon content (or with decreasing sol- pp. 269-75.

7. A.T. Dinsdale: CALPHAD, 1991, vol. 15, pp. 317-425.

idus temperature). 8. W. Huang: Metall. Trans. A, 1991, vol. 22A, pp. 1911-20.

The calculation package is now valid for carbon and 9. C. Qiu: Ph.D. Thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm,

low-alloyed steel grades and is under progress for stain- 1993.

less and alloyed steels. The development work of the 10. J.E. Lait, J.K. Brimacombe, and F. Weinberg: lronmaking and

calculation algorithms will also be continued. One ques- Steelmaking, 1974, vol. 1, pp. 90-97.

11. E.A. Mizikar: Trans. TMS-AIME, 1967, vol. 239, pp. 1747-53.

tion, for instance, is what the original austenite grain 12. I. Saucedo, J. Beech, and G.J. Davies: Met. Technol., 1982,

size is after solidification. Accurate data seem not to be vol. 9, pp. 282-91.

available. Moreover, additional experimental CCT data 13. S. Louhenkilpi, E. Laitinen, and R. Nieminen: Metall. Trans. B,

will be used for the determination of the regression for- 1993, vol. 24B, pp. 685-93.

14. F. Richter: Die Wichtigsten Physikalischen Eigenschaften yon 52

mulas in the ADC model, and more thermodynamic Eisenwerkstoffen, Verlag Stahleisen M.B.H., Dusseldorf,

assessment data will be added to the database of the Germany, 1973.

model package. More data on thermophysical properties 15. F. Richter: Physikalischen Eigenschaften yon Stiihlen un ihre

are searched and comparisons between calculated values Temperaturabhiingigkeit, Verlag Stahleisen M.B.H., Dusseldorf,

Germany, 1983.

and experimental results will be continued. One future 16. C.D. Smithells: Metals Reference Book, 5th ed., Butterworth and

aim also involves connecting the calculation package it- Co. Ltd., London, 1976.

eratively to a heat-transfer model of continuous steel 17. P.J. Wray: Proc. Modeling of Casting and Welding Processes,

casting. Rindge, NH, Aug. 3-8, 1980, H.D. Brody and D. Apelian, eds.,

TMS-AIME, Warrendale, PA, 1981, pp. 245-57.

18. A. Jablonka, K. Harste, and K. Schwerdtfeger: Steel Res., 1991,

V. CONCLUSIONS vol. 62, pp. 24-33.

19. C. Benedicks, N. Ericsson, and G. Ericsson: Arch.

Algorithms and a computer software package for cal- Eisenhiittenwes., 1930, vol. 3, p. 473.

20. A. O|sson: Scand. J. Metall., 1981, vol. 10, pp. 263-71.

culating thermophysical material properties of steels, 21. A. Fernandez Guillermet and P. Gustafson: High Temp.-High

taking into account the temperature, the cooling rate, Pressures, 1985, vol. 16, pp. 591-610.

and the composition, have been developed. The calcu- 22. P. Gustafson: Scand. J. Metall., 1985, vol. 14, pp. 259-67.

- hitch fractureUploaded byurwakhan
- Bainite in SteelsUploaded byCharlie Chong
- WRC 1992Uploaded byRamu Nallathambi
- Welding Procedure SpecificationUploaded byOsman Gone Rana
- Practical Guidelines for the Fabrication of High Performance Austenitic SSUploaded bylram70
- Classification of Stainless SteelsUploaded byhinsome Lee
- Normalizing heat treatment.pdfUploaded bysmani170
- ASME II Part AUploaded byVictor Adkins
- STUDIES ON EFFECT OF PERCENTAGE OF CARBON ON THE TENSILE & COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF STRUCTURAL STEELUploaded bySachin Chaturvedi
- 19. VV SATYANARAYANA 2005 Dissimilar metal friction welding of austenitic–ferritic stainless steelsUploaded bySyarif Hidayatullah
- Basic MetallurgyUploaded byMadhan Ramamoorthy
- A255Uploaded byibnu.asad984
- WJ_1992_05_s171.pdfUploaded bypsenthilpkumar
- 347623-PO 4503181944-LI 1Uploaded byRita Williams
- A493 00.pdfUploaded byJohano Araújo
- Stainless SteelUploaded bySci Hub
- JWM 2017 Question PaperUploaded byManish Kumar
- Heat TreatmentUploaded bypraveen
- AskelandPhuleNotes-CH12PrintableUploaded byShaikh Hakhim
- IPC2012-90327Uploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- Steel Process And Element Detail.docxUploaded bydh24992499
- Bhumika AcUploaded byDarshan Achar
- Manganese steelUploaded bysaifullah629
- Gural Bostan OzdemirUploaded byGustavo Braz
- 001_2012Uploaded bydownloadlagum
- JAI103525.1272762-1Uploaded byFederico Arley Quintero Angarita
- IRJET- An Experimental Study of Stainless Steel BeamUploaded byIRJET Journal
- New Evaluation and Qualification KaneUploaded bypapaya123
- Effect of Elementson SteelUploaded byDr-Sameer Saad
- metals-08-00116.pdfUploaded byrajahmundry phpl

- Steel Plastic AnalysisUploaded bybsitler
- Logarithmic Wind Proﬁle: A Stability Wind Shear TermUploaded bypedroazevedosantos
- The Concept of an Absorption ChillerUploaded bytechnokaki
- Loading for DesignUploaded byVenu Manikanta
- Tech Brief 2013 - Reading Centrifugal Pump Curves.pdfUploaded byFawaaz Khurwolah
- SALAHUDEEN 1.pdfUploaded bySeif Eddine
- TH35 Ejercicio AUploaded byLuis Cuzco
- Rectangular Concrete Beam Analysis - Design per ACI 318-99.xlsUploaded byAnonymous w5SJiLs
- Buckling of ColumnsUploaded bylisan2053
- Vipu Exam R1Uploaded byeshoffman007
- Settlement of foundationUploaded byShantanu Paul
- Gibbs Phase Rule DerivationUploaded byRavi Tripathi
- Exam 2 PracticeUploaded byMirtunjay Kumar
- capacity check of bolt.xlsUploaded byRAJESH DHUA
- Elasticity V1.0 - HSEB-XIUploaded byshresthasr7
- throttling calorimeter.docxUploaded byBoby Mainro
- 27 J AdhesionUploaded bymariutza_lucia
- Friction LossUploaded byasfand12345
- Sound Waves TestUploaded byJuan Pablo Chacana Burchard
- mec3syllUploaded byPrasanth Kumar
- Pack Evans JamesUploaded byRebecca Clark
- Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer april may 2008 question paperUploaded byelimelek
- Lecture 13 - Semi-Infinite SolidsUploaded byAnonymous VKv75qe98
- Hibbeler, Mechanics of Materials-Stress Transformation 2Uploaded bypoom2007
- Operating DensityUploaded byEnriqueGD
- Buoyancy - Wikipedia, The Free EncyclopediaUploaded bydonodoni0008
- AISI 1050 Carbon Steel Wire AlloyUploaded byjuprijupri25
- Development of a Liquefaction ModelUploaded bywilliam_cheang
- Chapter 6 Exergy Analysis of Psychrometric Processes 2013 Exergy Second EditionUploaded byAnonymous dUXvWL61
- Bar Cohen 1984Uploaded bySouadHadjadj